4 ms·

Containerization solves 99% of those problems and more, such as not having to worry about conflicting dependencies, share of common resources, etc. I would say

Containerization solves 99% of those problems and more, such as not having to worry about conflicting dependencies, share of common resources, etc. I would say shared hosting is now more popular than ever, with a twist: similar to the shift that has happened from multi-user mainframes to personal computers to ubiquitous computing (ie individuals having multiple computers), self-hosters are also now hosting not one but many websites/apps per server. I am not sure how the status quo is different from your suggestion, or rather, how your suggestion is an improvement over that?

int_19h 5y ago
> self-hosters are also now hosting not one but many websites/apps per server When was this not the case? Self-hosters are generally more resource-constrained, and thus reusing hardware makes more sense. It was pretty common already 20 years ago.
- boramalper 5y ago
  My bad, I should have added "with ease" at the end of that sentence. It was not impossible of course, but I personally find easier now.
chubot 5y ago
The original post is talking about static sites: https://sitejs.org/ https://sitejs.org/ And mentions a VPS: Sync and deploy to your own VPS. I shouldn't have brought up LAMP / PHP, because that confuses the issue. The point is that you should not use a VPS to serve static content! You will not do as good a job as maintaining the OS and web server as a professional. Just use shared hosting! You can also use Github Pages or whatnot, but that goes against the philosophy of centralized cloud providers. Commodity shared hosting is very portable between providers, because it's just a Linux box, without "cloud" stuff. That's all you need for static pages. Use rsync or git. This page looks really ugly but it will give you a sense of how many independent providers there are: https://www.webhostingtalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4 https://www.webhostingtalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4

int_19h 5y ago

> self-hosters are also now hosting not one but many websites/apps per server When was this not the case? Self-hosters are generally more resource-constrained, and thus reusing hardware makes more sense. It was pretty common already 20 years ago.

boramalper 5y ago
My bad, I should have added "with ease" at the end of that sentence. It was not impossible of course, but I personally find easier now.

chubot 5y ago

The original post is talking about static sites: https://sitejs.org/ https://sitejs.org/ And mentions a VPS: Sync and deploy to your own VPS. I shouldn't have brought up LAMP / PHP, because that confuses the issue. The point is that you should not use a VPS to serve static content! You will not do as good a job as maintaining the OS and web server as a professional. Just use shared hosting! You can also use Github Pages or whatnot, but that goes against the philosophy of centralized cloud providers. Commodity shared hosting is very portable between providers, because it's just a Linux box, without "cloud" stuff. That's all you need for static pages. Use rsync or git. This page looks really ugly but it will give you a sense of how many independent providers there are: https://www.webhostingtalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4 https://www.webhostingtalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4